Share 1565 reddit this Robin McKie, science editor
The Observer, Sunday 25 November 2001 11.24 GMT Article history A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.
Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away.

Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.

'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I am stunned.'

British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'

The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University, New York, claims the article provoked such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial board.

Dolly Tyan, president of the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, which runs the journal, told subscribers that the society is 'offended and embarrassed'.

The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East.

In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.

Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude.

But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article.

Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal.

He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.

'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said.

'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.'

In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.

One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'

LWW

03-09-2012, 04:17 AM

The reason is simple ... they don't want to endure the murderous acts of the radical Islamists, as occurred when the sin of drawing a cartoon of Mohammed happened.

Soflasnapper

03-09-2012, 09:29 AM

But Arab Moslems hold Jews as cousins or half-brothers, through the common father claimed, Abraham.

It isn't the Arabs who objected, but the Chosen.

cushioncrawler

03-09-2012, 04:06 PM

It is worth exploring a few quotes from the above article, as they are very revealing:

Observer wrote:
Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.

This shows the politics at work in certain circles of genetic research.

Sir Walter Bodmer wrote:
British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'

The fact that the journal initially published the paper shows the journal found nothing wrong with it scientifically. Indeed, all papers must pass peer review to be published. It also, apparently, saw nothing politically objectionable, until it received all those letters from people objecting to the supposedly politically incorrect wording.

Apparently, later on, in an attempt to discredit the study "scientifically," three scientists wrote in to Nature Magazine. Racial Reality and Pontikos claim it somehow "challenges" that the study was pulled for political reasons. This is utter nonsense, as the Observer article makes the political reasons for the withdrawal very plain. The three scientists are expressing their own opinions only, and their "lack of scientific merit" idea, which falls very weakly and definitely untrue, was not the reason for the retraction. This can be seen when viewing their own comment at the end of the article: "We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit." In actuality, this "scientific refutation" is a thinly veiled and weak attempt, containing nonsensical and straw-man arguments, to discredit the study solely and strictly because of its politically controversial remarks.

Here is the article. Note that what Dienekes Pontikos quotes on his site is only a portion of the article, and this is done to make it seem, to the unsuspecting reader, as though it pertains to the Greek study, or to Arnaiz-Villena's methodology in general, which it most certainly does not; if the scientists truly had a problem with the Greek study, they would have written specifically about it, and if they truly had a problem with Arnaiz-Villena's methodology in all his studies, they would have written about that. They didn't, and to reiterate, their comments about the Palestinian/Jewish study are invalid, and this will be explained below. This deception is also found on Racial Reality's own site, and he has added it to Wikipedia's article on admixture in Europe, calling it the "Arnaiz-Villena Controversy." Note also that there is no controversy in the scientific community over the study on Greeks at all; such controversy exists only in the minds of the two aforementioned southern European White Nationalists. I have made requests to have the misinformation removed from Wiki, but it hasn't happened yet. Racial Reality dodges the bullet by rewording it slightly, while still saying essentially the same thing. So, I have given up. Dear Reader, please take what you find on Wiki with several grains of salt; it is notorious for falsification, and I frankly don't think this problem will ever be resolved:

cushioncrawler

03-09-2012, 04:07 PM

Nature 415, 115 (10 January 2002); doi:10.1038/415115b

Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit

Sir – Even though the controversial withdrawal of a paper on the genetic relatedness of Palestinians and Jews by the journal Human Immunology (see Nature 414, 382; 2001) is a minor episode compared with the tragedies caused by ethnic/religious conflicts over past decades, the issues involved are worth revisiting.

The stated purpose of the paper by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al. was to "examine the genetic relationships between the Palestinians and their neighbours (particularly the Jews) in order to: (1) discover the Palestinian origins, and (2) explain the historic basis of the present ... conflict between Palestinians and other Muslim countries with Israelite Jews".

They conclude: "Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool that supports a common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin of the long-lasting Jewish–Palestinian hostility is the fight for land in ancient times."

It is difficult to believe that knowledge of genes may help to explain the present conflict. Although population genetics can address issues of relatedness of populations, mating patterns, migrations and so on, obviously it cannot provide evidence about reasons for conflicts between people.

Our primary concern, however, is that the authors might be perceived to have been discriminated against for political, as opposed to legitimate scientific, reasons.

Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.

The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.

We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.

It is clear that the three above scientists are catering to popular political sentiments, and that is a damned shame. Let's examine what they say:

Three Scientists wrote:
Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.

The DRB1 locus is apparently a good one to research, since it is used quite often by different researchers. It may only be one locus, but a relationship between populations at even one locus is still a relationship. Arnaiz-Villena, et al., say data obtained by using this locus is informative and discriminating, indeed more discriminating than data from mtDNA and Y-chromosomes. However, Arnaiz-Villena et al. always use other loci in addition to DRB1, and draw conclusions from all the data. So, the claim that conclusions are drawn from testing one locus (even though it is a good one) is false and a straw-man argument.

The claim the locus is under selection is vague and indefinite. Which alleles are under selection at this locus? There is no information stating that any of the ones tested are. Are all alleles found at this locus under selection? There isn't enough information to regard this seriously.

At any rate, selection plays no role in the Arnaiz-Villena studies, since the frequency of the alleles are not being used to estimate level of admixture. For example, no one is saying that allele from Population B exists in Population A at a rate of 4%, therefore there is admixture of Population B into Population A at a rate of 4%. This is the only case selection can have an adverse effect, because if an allele is expanded due to its being beneficial, its rate in a population will likely exceed the true admixture rate. If one is calculating admixture rate, one is likely to get inflated results.

However, the mere presence of any allele specific to one population in another cannot occur by any other means than admixture. Selection can never cause the presence of such an allele.

The study we are dealing with here, the one on Palestinian / Jewish relatedness, apparently included calculations of genetic distances at the DRB1 locus. Genetic distances are calculated by comparing the frequencies of alleles in various populations. The aim of calculating genetic distances is to determine relatedness of populations. Again, alleles under selection would have no effect on calculating relatedness, only on calculating level of admixture. If a certain foreign allele is introduced into a given population and becomes very beneficial in it, it causes those with the allele to survive, at the expense of those who don't have it. Eventually, many people will have this allele, even though it may have been introduced via a very small admixing population. However, as people without the allele die off, and those with it increase in number, it follows that the relatedness of the population to the population from which the beneficial allele came increases, of course, without the admixture increasing. Therefore, a calculation of genetic relatedness would reflect this elevated relatedness, without revealing true admixture. But if one is only calculating relatedness, it is not a problem and is quite accurate. This is precisely what Arnaiz-Villena, et al. are doing in this and their other studies.

The "DRB1 locus is under selection" attempt to discredit the study goes out the window.

Interestingly, Y-chromosome and mtDNA analysis is essentially the same as using a single HLA locus with its respective alleles, as mentioned to me by Dr. Arnaiz-Villena in private correspondence. Even more interestingly, Y Chromosomes and mtDNA are also subject to selection, since they are linked to diseases. Yet these are frequently used to calculate admixture estimates, and no one seems to complain:

cushioncrawler

03-09-2012, 04:08 PM

Arnaiz-Villena, et al., in 'Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective' (abstract below) wrote:
Other molecular markers, like mtDNA and Y Chr. are widely used for this type of research. They are also subject to selection since they are linked to diseases [...].

At any rate, the role selection plays is not necessarily significant in all cases, according a geneticist I recently spoke to. He explained that the four west African strains of HbS, which are definite indicators of sub-Saharan admixture when found elsewhere, are beneficial to those with malaria, and so selection would increase the frequency of the gene in malarial areas without the admixture increasing. However, in places like Sicily and southern Italy, the frequency of the HbS gene is still quite low, and generally not significantly different from estimates of African admixture using mtDNA, Y-chromosomes, or autosomal genes.

Let's face it: genetecists aren't going to use a marker or locus that isn't reliable. Period. To reiterate, Dr. Arnaiz-Villena has pointed out (in private correspondence) that HLA DRB1 is more discriminating than mtDNA or Y-chromosomes are.

cushioncrawler

03-09-2012, 04:08 PM

Continuing with the dissection of the three scientists' article:

Three Scentists wrote:
The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans;

Indeed, as shown by the neighbor-joining dendogram and correspondence analysis at the DRB1 locus shown in this Palestinian/Israeli study, Greeks are closely related to sub-Saharans. This is beyond question or challenge. This does not necessarily mean that overall, Greeks and sub-Saharans are similar. But a close relationship at even only one locus (already shown so far by two distinct methods of analyzing that locus) shows that admixture occurred. However, apparently the three scientists decided to ignore the actual study on Greeks (abstract & link below), because that study shows a relatedness in the samples between Greeks and sub-Saharans using several methods (including two ways of analyzing another locus entirely -- DQ), not just the neighbor-joining dendogram and correspondence analysis of DRB1 shown in the study on Palestinians and Jews, although those would certainly be sufficient; indeed, either one at the DRB1 locus alone would be sufficient. (This deliberate negligence on the part of the three scientists isn't surprising, because, as mentioned above, they criticized the basing of the main conclusions in the Israeli/Palestinian study -- that Palestinians and Israelis are related -- on only the DRB1 locus; this was most certainly not the case, since other loci were tested, and the conclusions were based on the similarities of all results.) Most convincingly, in the actual Greek study, several sub-Saharan-specific alleles were clearly found in the Greek population at the DRB1 locus when a direct search for alleles was undertaken. There is absolutely no getting around this. Sub-Saharan alleles could not be present in the Greek population without admixture having occurred. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of genetics and an ounce of common sense can see this. Alleles specific to one population do not appear in another by magic; only by admixture (as stated above).

cushioncrawler

03-09-2012, 04:08 PM

Three Scientists wrote:
and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans.

Firstly, according to another study, HLA Genes in Arabic-speaking Morrocans, the scientists (including Arnaiz-Villena) create what is definitely a similar tree to the one in the retracted study, and never mention that Japanese are related to sub-Saharan Africans, only that they are outliers together (along with Greeks, who really do have a relationship with sub-Saharans):

cushioncrawler

03-09-2012, 04:09 PM

Quote:
Greeks are almost outliers together with Japanese and San (Bushmen).. . In fact, a gradient from Western (both African and European) to Middle Eastern Mediterraneans is observed, placing distinctly Greeks, Japanese and San (Bushmen) as outliers.

Three Scientists wrote:
It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups.

Often, genetics will reveal something we didn't previously know about a population. This isn't so puzzling. In fact, it happens all the time, on both individual and populational levels. But in the case of the Greeks having sub-Saharan admixture and Jews / Palestinians being related, the studies are in concord with others. There will be more on the Greek study itself below. It is only being mentioned here because of the cross-referenced data in the study on Palestinians and Jews.

cushioncrawler

03-09-2012, 04:09 PM

Three Scientists wrote:
Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.

This is a very silly and ignorant thing to say, since, as mentioned above, all studies must pass peer review before being published in scientific journals. As mentioned, the study on Palestinians and Jews passed peer review, proving it contained no glaring scientific errors, contrary to what the three scientists who wrote to Nature want us to believe.

An e-mail reply to my query to one of the three claiming a scientific weakness for the study is as follows:

One of the three scientists, in an e-mail reply wrote:
Thanks for writing. I was rather surprised by the following statement in the article you recommend that I read : 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article”. I am not a Jew, but I have great respect for them, and I don’t think they are so ordinary, but I am one of those few geneticists that look at culture rather than genes. I am also scared by the amount of antisemitism I see around. Is the sentence above another bit of it? If so, it is better to not spread it around.
The Arnaiz article was refused on the basis of a mistake made by Arnaiz Villena or his colleagues that introduced into a scientific article politics about a very sad conflict that has been going on for decades now, and that we would all like to come to a reasonable end as soon as possible, ideally one dignified for both sides.
Arnaiz apologized, and so I suppose he has been forgiven for it and I am not sure the issue deserves continuing comment.

Quite surprising and revealing, isn't it? The scientist, who confirms the retraction of the study was political, actually thinks culture should be included in genetic investigations. Doing this can certainly prevent one from learning the truth about a population's genetic structure, since given genes do not necessarily correspond to a given culture. I must confess I am quite disappointed in this well-respected scientist, and will henceforth be somewhat wary of his work.

As mentioned above, that the study passed peer review shows nothing was wrong with it. This, together with the facts that: the study was indeed not pulled for scientific reasons; that no other scientists complained about the study scientifically; that no other scientists complained about other similar studies employing the DRB1 locus; and that the three scientists themselves complained about no other similar studies using the DRB1 locus, helps to show the study is scientifically sound. The fact that other scientists had written in to support Arnaiz-Villena after the retraction, further proves the study's validity:

cushioncrawler

03-09-2012, 04:09 PM

Observer wrote:
In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.

One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'

Sad business, indeed. Interestingly, the scientist who wrote the e-mail reply above thinks the above quote is Anti-Semitic, and should not be spread around. It is not, and is simply factual. This would equally apply to any other group (or individual) else with an ideological interest in the outcome of a genetics study.

So, to summarize, the study on the relatedness of Jews and Palestinians is perfectly valid from a scientific standpoint. The retraction was for political reasons, and the supposedly scientific objections by a few scientists are easily taken apart, and indeed are merely disguised attempts to show their dislike of the study for political reasons only.

-----

Now, it is time to move on to the study on the Greeks, which is called HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks. Again, keep in mind that this study has not been retracted or challenged.

HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum, 3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.

PMID: 11260506 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Here is the link to the full article of the above abstract:

http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.a ... i.2001.pdf

The study found a clear relationship between Greeks and sub-Saharan populations. A neighbor-joining dendogram at the DRB1 locus shows this. Correspondence analyses using HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies data and low resolution HLA-DR and DQ (DQ, incidentally, is another locus) allele frequencies data support this. Genetic distances with HLA-DR and DQ generic typings support this. HLA-DRB1 genetic distance calculations support this. And finally, eleven DRB1 alleles were found to be shared by Greeks and sub-Saharans when a direct allele search was undertaken. These alleles, when not found in any real quantities in other populations geographically close to Greece, were searched for in other locations, and were found to exist mainly in Ethiopian and West African populations. Some are only found in Greeks and sub-Saharans, while a few are sporadically found in other populations, mainly around the Mediterranean (the Croatian island of Hvar and Lebanon) and Hungary. African ancestry in any of these populations should not be surprising. (Incidentally, two are found in Amerindians, who have been shown by other methods to have sub-Saharan admixture. One is found in Pacific peoples, who have also been shown to have low levels of sub-Saharan admixture by other methods.) This shows an introgression of sub-Saharan alleles into the Greek population. Again, the only way for alleles from one population to enter another one is by admixture. Selection cannot cause this. The DRB1 locus' being subject to selection has no bearing on these results (see above).

(It should also be noted that the idea put forth by one individual that the HLA alleles in question are Greek alleles and the sub-Saharan populations carrying them do so because of Greek admixture doesn't hold even a drop of water. This is because Greece's neighbours were tested for the alleles and were found not to have them to any significant degree. Since Greek colonists settled in many parts of the Mediterranean, if the alleles had been Greek in origin, they would be present in Greece's neighbours, like Italians, Turks, etc., at appreciable rates. Also, there is no historical evidence of significant Greek settlement in these sub-Saharan areas, particularly the West African ones. But there is indeed evidence of significant presence and settlement of sub-Saharans in Greece.)

Other tests that show other results should not surprise. There is another study, called High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 locus in the Macedonian population, by Petlichkovski, et al., 2004, which tests the same DRB1 locus and apparently doesn't report sub-Saharan material (see below on this), and finds Greeks to be similar to Macedonians and other southern Europeans (using genetic distance calculations). In the study itself (not in the abstract) the Arnaiz-Villena study is addressed, and it is mentioned that their results are not in agreement with those of Arnaiz-Villena, and the reasoning used is that the sampled populations were different. This makes perfect sense. The authors didn't try to discredit the Arnaiz-Villena study, which they couldn't do, anyway, because results are results. But isn't it strange that those with ideological investments in the purity of Greeks or other Mediterraneans who claim to object to the use of the DRB1 locus don't object to this study, and freely quote it, conveniently ignoring, of course, what is stated in boldface above? If that doesn't make things clear, nothing will! Incidentally, Racial Reality, who frequently berates those who don't look beyond abstracts into the studies themselves, should have taken his own advice in this case, as he is one of those who fraudulently quotes this study as "proof" of a lack of African ancestry in Greeks.

cushioncrawler

03-09-2012, 04:10 PM

Petlichkovski, et al. wrote:
The observed closest standard genetic distance between the studied Macedonian population and the Greek population (SGD = 2.777, GD = 6.35) is not in concord with that published by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (21), who point out the close genetic relatedness of the Macedonian population to that of the Cretans and to the great genetic distance between the Macedonians and the Greeks coming from Attica, Cyprus, and northern Greece. Papassavas et al. (22) reveal a significant decrease of both DRB1*1104 and *1601 allele frequencies in the Cretan population used for the genetic distance analysis by Arnaiz-Villena et al., compared to their results. Bearing in mind the differences in the allele frequencies in the Macedonians in our study and those in the study of Arnaiz-Villena et al., we believe that the discordance of the observations in both the studies investigating the HLA polymorphism is probably due to the selection of different subject populations.

Specifically, this sentence from the abstract is used by Greek white nationalists in an attempt to fraudulently "prove" there is no sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks (as if this could really be done, since the Arnaiz-Villena Greek study, amongst others, has shown conclusively the opposite) is as follows:

Petlichkovski, et al. wrote:
The included African populations grouped on the opposite side of the tree.

The key word here is included, since the included African populations were not the sub-Saharan ones Arnaiz-Villena mentioned had a relationship with Greeks (Oromo, Amhara, Nuba, Fulani, Rimaibe, Mossi), but instead, were Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians (all North Africans), and Mandenka (sub-Saharan, but from Senegal) -- populations which Arnaiz-Villena also found to be distant from Greeks. Quoting from inside the actual Petlichkovski study:

cushioncrawler

03-09-2012, 04:10 PM

Petlichkovski, et al. wrote:
As expected, the included African populations (Moroccans, Egyptians, Mandenka, and Algerians) were grouped on the opposite side of the tree.

As we can see, Pontikos and Racial Reality are distorting things once again!

Now it is time to address additional claims made by some that the words of M.A. Jobling, M.E. Hurles, and C. Tyler-Smith, from their book Human Evolutionary Genetics, Garland Publishing: New York, 2004 (as quoted by Greek Nationalist Dienekes Pontikos) somehow refute the Greek study (which they don't). Once again, we are being misled, since the study being referred to is the one on Palestinians and Jews, even though they specifically refer to the Greek correspondence analysis reproduced in it from the original Greek study. I have this textbook, and the only mentioning of Arnaiz-Villena in the references is with regard to the Palesinians/Jews study. I am keeping this discussion in the Greek section of this article, incidentally, since it deals with Greek data, despite its coming from the other study.

Jobling, et al. [according to Dienekes] write:

Quote:
As an example, Figure 1.5 illustrates the arbitrariness of different possible population groupings based upon DNA sequence diversity at an HLA locus. Often an objective way to choose between different interpretations is not obvious (though objective methods are discussed later in this book), and in its absence, simple assertion often fills the vacuum.

Figure 1.5: Grouping populations – take your pick. Relationships between populations based on DNA sequence diversity data at the HLA-DRB1 locus, displayed as a correspondence analysis plot (similar to principal components analysis; see Chapter 6) in which clustered populations are genetically similar. (a) Populations, with names indicated; (b, c, d) Three alternative groupings of the populations (there are others). The grouping chosen by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001) is (d) (adduced as support for a sub-Saharan origin for the Greeks) but is essentially arbitrary. Why is it preferred to alternative groupings shown in (b) and (c)? If the population origins were unknown when the groupings were made, would it affect the outcome? Note that this locus is generally regarded as being under strong selection. Adapted from Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001).[Q1]

Click here for larger version.

In actuality, Dienekes leaves out much of the text (surprise, surprise) so that the true reason of the inclusion of the correspondence analysis is not revealed, which is to show how different interpretations are often (not just with this diagram or this study) possible when it comes to results, with opposing camps going at it, as it were. Here is the full quote from that particular section, from pages 11-12: